ACOs

26th Sep
Posted By

It’s past time to fix the broken referral process

by Scott Vold, CEO and Co-Founder

Today’s healthcare leaders need to grow revenue and cut costs simultaneously – creating a marketplace that offers great opportunities, along with tremendous potential for failure.

Providers have looked to their EMRs, deployed analytics, sought consumer and mobile tools to increase patient retention, and expanded their reach into ambulatory settings. Yet the combined benefit of these approaches still leaves providers short in their need to aggressively cut costs and grow top-line revenue.

Forward-thinking healthcare executives are recognizing that managing referrals and leakage can hold the key to growing meaningful top-line revenue while delivering margin and cost protection in the evolving fee-for-value model. Our new white paper, “The Hundred Million Dollar Opportunity: Why it’s time to fix the broken referral process,” provides new data and insights into the size of this problem and how to fix it.

We recently commissioned Sage Growth Partners to survey over 100 healthcare executives about patient leakage. We were surprised that 23% don’t know what patient leakage costs them and another 43% are losing over 10% of revenues. These losses are staggering. They also represent an untapped opportunity to reform the way we manage referrals.  We’ll share more of the data from that survey in an upcoming post.

Today, referrals still depend more on personal relationships and fax machines than on data and smart technology. The advanced technology we apply to other aspects of healthcare too often aren’t applied to managing referrals.

The problem demands a new approach and a greater appreciation for how a reimagined referral management process can fundamentally alter the clinical and financial power of providers. Quite simply, referrals should rank at the top of the list of solutions that executive teams consider to grow revenue, manage costs, and improve quality.

Success won’t be achieved by taking a passive approach. It will require a willingness to embrace new solutions to manage referrals and a recognition that standing still on this issue is a bit like business malpractice.

The good news is that this broken referral process can be fixed and that the return on investment (ROI) for managing it is enormous. Solutions that analyze the complex referral process in real time and enable organizations to optimally manage referrals are available. Our white paper discusses how much healthcare organizations are losing today, and how much they stand to gain by making a making a modest investment in a purpose-built solution that can analyze referrals and enable them to manage it for the benefit of their organization and all of its stakeholders, including patients.

twitterredditlinkedinmail
19th Apr
Posted By

Revolutionize Your Referral Network

By Matt Wilson

After seeing their primary care physician, a patient may need to be referred to another physician or surgeon for additional care. But what if the patient were invited to see how a traditional referral process works? Most would be taken aback at how unsophisticated the healthcare system can appear.

Example: a patient is handed a slip of paper with a specialist’s name and phone number, the PCP’s office staff waving goodbye and wishing them luck as they exit. Should the patient fail to schedule the referral on their own — something that is all too common — there is a decent chance there will be no follow-up from either physicians’ office. The result: a patient goes without proper, possibly vital, care. They “slip through the cracks” and become another leakage statistic.

For fortunate patients, the referring provider’s care coordinator may work with the patient and the specialist’s office to help book a convenient time and ensure that their insurance plan will cover the visit. They may even send over any vital documentation. In 2018, too many healthcare providers do not leverage technology to manage their referral networks, resorting to paper-based, labor intensive workflows at a time when they are held more accountable than ever before for the care they provide.

Assessing referral networks

Though referral processes will vary from provider to provider, how they decide where to refer each patient does not. More than likely, providers are going to refer their patients to the same specialists and groups that they have been using for years, possibly decades. The decision to refer to these specialists is unlikely to be the result of an objective, in-depth cost and quality analysis. So, what are possible reasons they start referring to them in the first place? Their colleagues made a recommendation; they went to the same medical school; or they met at the tennis club.

Any way you look at it, it is fair to conclude that most providers are not efficiently managing their referral networks. What isn’t fair is the result this can have on patients due to the resulting quality and cost of care. Before we cast too many stones, it is important to note that providers have not had access to tools needed to optimize referral networks and guide patients to the most appropriate specialists. They’ve simply trusted their gut, made a decision and fell into a routine. After all, doctors are people, too.

Fortunately, companies like Fibroblast help providers build and manage high performance referral networks, utilizing rule-based workflows to increase revenue, reduce value-based risk and improve patient outcomes. Technology now exists to guide each patient to the single most appropriate specialist for them. It is individualized population health management, an industry development that is sure to impact the cost and quality of care.

Fibroblast’s proprietary algorithm takes into consideration top variables that should be reviewed for each patient’s referral: network affiliation, quality, cost, accepted insurance, responsiveness, availability, tests and procedures performed, distance from the patient’s home, etc. When providers come face-to-face with this data they more often than not start to change their referral patterns. They can be confident they are selecting a specialist that is most likely to deliver the most optimal outcome.  

Infusing referral data

Objective and relevant referral data can influence provider choices at the point-of-care. When a provider knows their patient requires additional care beyond their scope, they want to set a referral in motion and move on. If a provider wants to ensure that each patient goes to an in-network specialist that participates with the patient’s health insurance plan, but they don’t always have the data they need, then Fibroblast is a logical solution.

Fibroblast has the ability to show red flags, like unacceptably long wait times for a specialist or low-quality scores. Providers and staff can quickly act on that information and select another specialist. It is, of course, unsurprising that correct information at the right time impacts care. What is surprising is how often necessary, relevant information and data is never considered when making a referral. The healthcare industry still lives in the age of paper-based workflows, and companies like Fibroblast offer a solution that providers need.

Actionable referral data

When supplied with the right information, administrators and providers have the ability to influence referral patterns outside of the point-of-care. They can see — by using solutions such as Fibroblast — what is actually happening in their referral network, where opportunities can be won and where weaknesses can be strengthened.

Executive dashboards allow real-time access, so providers can be assured they are building, growing and maintaining the most efficient referral network; consistently delivering the clinical and financial outcomes that providers want and patients need.

At first glance, referral management seems quite straightforward. In reality, it is an incredibly complex web of interconnected decisions and outcomes. The good news for patients is that providers now have access to technology solutions like Fibroblast to arm themselves with actionable information to help solve referral management issues, which in turn provides each patient with the best possible care.

twitterredditlinkedinmail
09th Aug
Posted By

3 Important Statistics About Provider Referrals

improve patient experiences

Referral management is an increasingly important part of managing the patient experience and coordinating care within a clinically integrated network (CIN). Yet, often times, referral workflows and trends are poorly documented and misunderstood. Our organization, Fibroblast, a patient referral management solution company, conducted a survey of over one hundred physicians across thirty specialties to quantify how their referral processes work and how they affect providing care. Our data revealed three major conclusions:

Patients do not follow-up

Our data revealed that approximately 33% of patients do not follow-up with the specialist to whom they are referred. That’s worse than the adherence rate for most prescription medications![i] Put another way, only two out of every three patients actually receive the care that they need when a referral is made. This gap in adherence results in higher acuity cases, poor patient outcomes, and millions of dollars of cost to healthcare organizations annually. In an increasingly risk-based environment, providers cannot afford this gap in care.

 

Read More Here!

twitterredditlinkedinmail
26th Jul
Posted By

Reducing Out of Network Leakage and Improving Access to Care at a Major Integrated Delivery Network

Check out a great case study on reducing out of network leakage and improving access to care at a major integrated delivery network. here!
 
Presence Health Case Study

twitterredditlinkedinmail
01th Jul
Posted By

Three Steps to Immediately Improve Patient Referral Management

Here are three tactical ways primary care practices can improve the patient referral processes and see immediate improvements in patient followthrough with referral appointments.

1. Dedicate staff members to actively manage referrals

Designate members of the front desk or administrative team as the practice’s referral coordinators. The referral coordinators orchestrate the referral process and track the progress and outcomes of each patient referral. Referral coordinators should be good communicators who work well with patients and providers, both inside and outside the practice. Referral coordinators should also be highly organized, familiar with the practice’s information systems and time expectations for various referrals, and be willing to take persistent action to facilitate and track referrals.

2. Create scalable, repeatable referral workflows to ensure the referral loop gets closed

To the greatest extent possible, the practice should create standardized referral workflows that are scalable, repeatable, and transparent. Too often, referrals are handled ad hoc by multiple members of the staff, using faxes and phone calls to transit patient information and track referrals. That system is inefficient and opaque—patients are lost and potentially catastrophic outcomes can ensue. Rather, all referrals should be routed through the referral coordinators so that the referrals can be tracked. Ideally, the referral coordinators would utilized an automated, end to end referral management solution like Fibroblast, which guides patient referrals to the most appropriate network provider, ensures the timely two-way flow of information between providers needed to complete the referral process, and tracks referrals in real time. After all, the referral doesn’t actually happen until the patient receives the care or services the patient needs; the referral loop isn’t closed until the referring provider receives information back from the consulting provider about the patient’s care.

3. Engage the patient with referral-related messages

The most important and most overlooked stakeholder in the entire referral process is the patient. The most common reasons why patients do not follow up on referrals for care are confusion by the process and frustration over scheduling an appointment. What is more, recent research indicates that 72% of patients would like to communicate with their medical providers over email and 63% would like to communicate by text message. The practice should adopt an automated patient messaging application, like the one offered by Fibroblast. By sending patients automated, preference-sensitive messages about their referrals, the practice keeps patients informed and engaged, greatly increasing appointment attendance rates and promoting better patient outcomes.

twitterredditlinkedinmail
08th Apr
Posted By

Navigating the Waters of Population Health and Quality Care in a Full Risk World: A Summary

On February 2, 2016, Dr. Andrew Albert, Chief Medical Officer at Fibroblast, Inc., led a webinar to discuss how quality measures can help health systems to improve upon their population health goals for today’s newly-chartered world of shifting payment and care delivery models. The webinar hosted approximately 100 listeners and featured speakers Dr. Nikhil Parikh, an Academic Internist, Mr. Robert Sehring, Central Region CEO of OSF Healthcare, and Dr. William Markey, a solo practitioner in the field of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine. Providing a holistic discussion of population health, the webinar began with a patient interview and ended with perspectives on the future effects of population health on the healthcare industry at large. What follows are the key take-aways.

The status quo for patient care does not adequately promote effective population health management.

As speaker Dr. Nikhil Parikh noted, the job of a primary care physician (PCP) is extremely challenging. With patient routine appointments increasingly being pushed into 15-minute time blocks, PCPs do not have adequate time to ask every question or suggest every appropriate screening for a particular patient. Compounding the issue, many new patients for a given PCP are missing vital health information in their medical records which would have alerted the PCP to perform certain preventative care measures. These systemic frustrations engender a ripple effect from the PCP, to the patient, and onward to specialists and health system leadership. Take the example of the patient interviewed, Margaret, who was diagnosed with colon cancer at approximately 70 years old. Margaret never visited a GI doctor or underwent a colonoscopy until she presented to her PCP with some alarming symptoms. A colon cancer diagnosis is especially devastating since for many patients, it’s a detectable and preventable disease. What is needed are tools to ensure that patients are receiving their early detection screenings: preventative colonoscopy exams are suggested for patients beginning at the age of 45, a full 25 years sooner. The status quo of ignoring preventative care recommendations and presenting to PCPs only once symptoms arise allows patients to slip through the cracks. (For a more in-depth discussion about patients who have fallen through the cracks in the healthcare system, check out our recent blog post Missed Connections.)

It isn’t just patients who experience the status quo strain. Speaker Dr. William Markey described how specialists are inundated with late-term diagnoses for what could have been preventable cases. From his perspective, population health goals are not forced onto specialists per se; however, discussions around new and improved quality goals are now becoming more routine. As such, specialists and PCPs alike are playing increasingly involved roles in population health management, sometimes without even realizing their uniting objective. For Dr. Markey, patient education is at the root of population health. In his opinion, patients should be exposed to more teaching opportunities surrounding the topic of proper health care and disease prevention. Furthermore, he maintains that such teaching opportunities should occur along patients’ entire care continuums, regardless of the difficulty of finding proper tools to facilitate this knowledge transfer. The third undulation occurs at the administrative level. There is no doubt that setting quality goals to propel successful population health management can be daunting. Moreover, the impact of administrative decisions to align with Medicaid and other government program goals must be careful monitored given its flow down to care management practices.

The transition to new care delivery and payment models, coupled with focused measurement of quality goals, is necessary for the future sustainability of healthcare.

Whether taken from the perspective of the patient, PCP, specialist, or administrator, the healthcare market is changing drastically in the areas of delivery, payment, data privacy and security, technology, and beyond. In taking listeners quickly through highlights of the most important recent changes in the healthcare market, Dr. Albert elucidated that each stakeholder in the healthcare industry can feel the ‘ground shaking’ underneath her. One of the most poignant points was the vast difference in various stakeholder agendas. Commercial payors are drastically compressing provider reimbursement rates and upping the requirements and criteria for reimbursements. Government payors are calling for a complete overhaul of care delivery and payment models. Providers require better tools to manage to their business goals while simultaneously maintaining their provision of excellent clinical care; health system administrators are fighting to maintain sufficient margins to keep their doors open. Furthermore, the requirements associated with the ICD-10 transition and the burgeoning EHR interoperability challenges only stress health systems further. Yet progress is being made on the quest to achieve higher-quality, lower-cost patient care.

Quality measures will focus and drive efforts to achieve population health goals moving forward.

When asked, “Is there anyone who will not be affected [by population health goals]?” Mr. Sehring firmly answered, “No, not if we are going to be successful.” As healthcare delivery transitions from today’s emphasis on ‘sick care’ to high-quality preventative care, one hopes that scenarios like Margaret’s will disappear. Increased focus on population health management and quality metrics will benefit all healthcare industry stakeholders. According to Mr. Robert Sehring, a fee-for-service (FFS) payment system is an example of a “misaligned incentive.” From the payors’ perspective, FFS results in higher costs and not necessarily better patient health outcomes. To facilitate the transition to value-based care delivery and associated payment models and attainment of specific population health goals, Mr. Sehring suggests a team-based approach that includes other ancillary services such as health coaches. The linchpin of effective population health management is the delivery of quality care and the attainment of quality measures. Attainment of quality measure goals serves a dual purpose: support for reimbursements and cost management. Plainly speaking, care of specific patient populations cannot be effective without an astute focus on quality.

Fibroblast, Inc. would like to thank Dr. Nikhil Parikh, Dr. William Markey, and Mr. Robert Sehring for their participation as speakers. Fibroblast would also like to extend its gratitude and best wishes to Margaret and her family.

twitterredditlinkedinmail
23th Jul
Posted By

Patient Leakage: Acknowledging the Rusty Pipes

By Miranda Crowell

 

If you’re involved in any aspect of a patient referral, patient leakage is a problem which cannot be ignored. Like water dripping from a pipe, patient leakage leads to lost revenue and increased costs. And if money is not enough to perk your ears, patient leakage can also lead to negative clinical outcomes and a poor patient experience.

Patient leakage occurs when a patient’s business leaks out of the system because either (i) the patient failed to make or attend a follow-up/referral visit or (ii) the patient took his or her business to a competitor. While not an exhaustive list, below are four key reasons why patient leakage happens in the first place.

Old Habits Die Hard: Providers and Staff Revert to Past Trends

Like any business, patient referrals can be all about who ya know. When doctors create a relationship and a belief that the other performs satisfactory work, a tendency to refer to that person may form. It can be difficult for new players to enter into this system of trust, even when the new provider is in-network. Without taking advantage of ways to put a medical service in plain sight for other doctors to see, referring doctors and staff may not have knowledge of all the options. Lastly, some staff may have a “We have always done it this way” attitude, but it is this approach that could be costing your business money.

Patient’s Beliefs

Even if your business has made a strong effort to refer in-network, patient leakage can still occur when the patient subjectively believes that one provider outperforms another. Word of mouth is a powerful tool, so businesses should use this tool to their advantage by capitalizing on in-network referrals when they can and educating patients on the benefits of staying in-network when they cannot. Poor past experiences also motivate a patient to go outside of a network, so businesses should not shy away from the tough conversations.

Convenience

Sometimes a patient’s lack of follow-up or missed referral has a simple root cause: lack of convenience. A patient may fail to follow-up because (i) the consulting or referred-to doctor took too long to respond to the patient, (ii) the doctor’s office is too far or other access to care issues exist, or (iii) the consulting doctor is not accepting patients (among others). Recently, price has become a part of the convenience discussion. As discussed in a previous blog post, retail healthcare offices are far superior than traditional providers when it comes to price transparency. But even if your office is not ready to post the price for routine services on your website, cost is becoming increasingly important to the consumer. Providing cost transparency for services, such as colonoscopies, mammograms, X-rays, and vaccinations, may poise your business to reduce patient leakage.

A Broken Referral System – Still Largely a Paper-Based System

If the state of the art referral is made on a one-fourth sized sheet of paper or a computer printout, it is no surprise that patient leakage exists. A patient will feel little commitment to follow through with instructions for future action. Conversely, appointments for follow-ups made on-site are an obligation; the appointment is already scheduled into the patient’s life. Moreover, most physicians do not share an IT platform, so there is little way to follow the patient through their course of treatment. This could lead to potential poor outcomes, medical malpractice risks, and poor patient experiences. (You can read more about medical malpractice risks involved in a patient referral here.)
In short, patient leakage is a preventable problem. Unless the rusty pipes are acknowledged, patient leakage could be bleeding your business of downstream revenue. With a few minor changes and some clever tools, such as Fibroblast’s referral platform, the problem of patient leakage can be a problem no more.

twitterredditlinkedinmail
15th Jun
Posted By

The Shift (Part 3) – How Payors Are Influencing Value-Based Payments

By Miranda Crowell

 

After some basic explanation about fee-for-value payment models in The Shift Part 1, followed by a pro/con discussion of fee-for-value payment models in The Shift Part 2, the final piece in this series focuses on various non-provider perspectives surrounding shifting payment models. This post touches upon how insurance companies are embracing The Shift to drive unprecedented change in our healthcare system.

As Optum puts it, the main drivers of market transformation are the need for 1.) consumer-centric healthcare delivery, 2.) value-driven care, and 3.) healthcare infrastructure modernization.  Admittedly, a consumer-centric healthcare system could mean shifting the delivery of care from a long-standing employer-epicenter to a more individualistic approach. Additionally, the way that people view healthcare may change over time. Value-based contracting will push physicians to achieve both quality and efficiency targets before sharing in any cost-savings acquired by fee-for-value contracting. As Payal Shah puts it, this new system will result in a better patient experience, lower healthcare costs, and overall higher quality care. With society’s ever-increasing interest in social media, brand perception could play a role in the patient’s decision to chose a particular provider over another. After all, sharing an opinion about a physician is only 140 characters away.

But it isn’t just patients that are going to see changes. From an employer perspective, UnitedHealthcare told employers in 2012 that they “expect the aggregated return-on-investment of our value-based contracting programs to exceed 2:1 in terms of savings vs. incentives paid because only a portion of the savings will be shared with providers.” The concept is that employers will see a hard-working, healthier workforce with a value-based delivery system, thereby incentivizing employers to be open-minded to changes.

Insurance companies have been anticipating the slow switch from service to value-based contracting. As Shah noted, “insurance companies are working in collaboration with health care providers … regarding payment for incentives, and payors are making sure that savings are realized.” UnitedHealthcare Group is on board with value-based contracting and anticipates a 20% increase in value-based payments in 2015, raising payments from UnitedHealthcare to somewhere “north of $43 billion,” according to Forbes. Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) companies reported a portfolio of 350 locally-developed, value-based programs in July 2014 and have since increased that number to 570 companies by March of 2015. From 2013 to 2014, BCBS had a 9% increase in claims affiliated with value-based programs and reports $71 billion (yes folks, that another “b”) in programs that provide incentives for quality-based care based on a 2014 annual survey.

Lastly, healthcare infrastructure modernization products and services will be a player on the field that should not be ignored. One quick tour around Matter in Chicago, Illinois, will demonstrate that healthcare tech innovation is already influencing healthcare delivery. For example, Fibroblast Inc., a patient referral management platform, recently landed a deal with Presence Health, Illinois’s second largest health system with over 1 million patients.This takes us full circle back to the concept of patient-centered healthcare; with an increased access to choices in providers, patients will inevitably increase use of information such as branding perceptions, word-of-mouth, and social media when choosing a provider similar to choosing a meal via GrubHub. In summary, the effects of market transformation are far-reaching. Needless to say, the next few years should prove to be one wild ride for all involved with the healthcare market.

twitterredditlinkedinmail
03th Jun
Posted By

Clinically Integrated But Not Necessarily Aligned: Who’s to blame for patient leakage in Clinically Integrated Networks?

Patients are falling through cracks in our healthcare system, leading to poor patient outcomes and hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue opportunities per healthcare system. This problem is intensified by declining fee for service reimbursements and the financial risks of value-base payment models.

Why does out-of-network patient leakage occur, who is to blame, and what can be done about it?

On June 24 at 12 PM CDT, Fibroblast, in collaboration with Matter and EDLoop, is hosting a one hour webinar discussion of how and why out-of-network patient leakage occurs in a Clinically Integrated Network from the perspectives of an independent private practicing physician, an employed physician, and former ACO executive.

Click on the flier below or this link to register.

Fibroblast Webinar

twitterredditlinkedinmail
02th Jun
Posted By

The Shift (Part 2) – Shifting Medicare Payment Models: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

 

By Miranda Crowell

In Part 1 of The Shift, we gave our readers an informational crash course on the shift of Medicare payments from fee-for-service to fee-for-value. In Part 2 of The Shift, we hope to provide our readers with arguments for and against this type of payment system, realizing that such a discussion is for information purposes only. This change in the healthcare market is going to happen, but that doesn’t mean that all the kinks are ironed smooth just yet. Nonetheless, the future looks bright (and getting brighter as time passes!)

The Good

Now that the hype from the resplendent payment-reform unveiling has died down, it is time to see the plan in action. The working parts of Medicare payment reform look promising, and reform is proving a positive shift for the many players in the healthcare field. For starters, the old-school Sustainable Growth Rate formula of Medicare payments was scrapped in April, and everyone on both sides of the aisle could high-five in agreement that a broken formula was finally given the boot. Furthermore, the ACA gives involved agencies a broad range of authority to promulgate rules to help the whole reform process run smoothly; perhaps some good ole’ fashioned notice-and-comment rulemaking is just the trick for all those worried that certain facets of shifting payments is not broad enough. For example, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is authorized to work with states to test all-payer payment reforms. Maryland has seen some success in setting payment rates at the same level for both public and private payers and operating in a system constraining both volume and price. Others passionately argue that a combination of patient-care navigators, IT tools, and cultural change have led to success in bundled care. Amedisys, a company out of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, saw a 21% decline in 90-day readmission rates in one of their regions testing bundled payments – an undeniably impressive feat.

The Sort-of Bad and The Kind-of Ugly

Recall that the goals of shifting Medicare payments from fee-for-service to fee-for-value are to rid the healthcare market of payment systems that promote a piecemeal approach to patient care, to improve patient outcomes, and to decrease the costs of healthcare on both a patient and market level. Arguably, Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) may be off to a slow start; but they are steadily gaining steam. As the Center for American Progress reports, ACOs are maturing. Most of the saving incurred by ACOs were seen in the Pioneer Model, or the select few healthcare providers that bought into ACO lifestyle early on. As the Center for American Progress reports, “Of the 23 ACOs that participated in the second year of the Pioneer program, only 11 earned shared savings while 6 [ACOs] generated more than $25 million in gross losses.” Second year savings by ACOs represented only 0.008% of net Medicare spending in 2013. Additionally, a (somewhat limited) report posited that there was little difference in the quality of care received by a bundled payment group compared to a non-bundled payment group. (You can access the report here.) But as good science tells us, a larger sample size and timeline are needed in order to get an accurate account of ACO and bundled payment successes; anything else should be considered merely preliminary.

While not universally felt, some healthcare providers may be displaying appreciation and apprehension at the same time. There is appreciation because the idea of promoting better health outcomes is certainly a charming goal, and the marketing of these promises is pretty impressive. As recently as the end of May, the Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease Reduction Model was announced to compliment shifting payment models, and generally, people seem on board. It’s hard not to be dazzled by the idea of it all. There may be some apprehension because providers’ goals can be treatment- and answer-driven, while those of administrators may be more numbers- and efficiency-driven. Overall, it is expected that both providers and administrators will be speaking the same language soon enough. And this type of initial hesitation is to be expected where any major system-shocking changes are introduced into the industry – these things just take some time.

Final Thoughts

So far, the successes and failures of Medicare payment reform show that, like any other large change, market reform takes time. Lessons from succeeding Pioneer Model providers can be shared to similarly situated providers, and some early pilot programs seem promising. Small sample sizes and relatively short time frames make testing the outcomes of payment reform difficult. (You can read more about drawing conclusions of payment reform via Modern Healthcare.) In general, there is hopeful anticipation when it comes to ACOs and the new payment models, and there are tools like Fibroblast to help along the way. In our final piece of this series, you can find out how such shifting Medicare payments will impact parties working with the healthcare market, but not necessarily within it.

 

twitterredditlinkedinmail
12Next